For a government that wants to deliver more services, more quickly and at a lower cost, it must be tempting to see technology as the solution to all of its problems. Indeed, a central tenet of its Gershon review of efficiency last year was that savings could be made by making more use of IT, helping to ensure that £20bn is redirected towards ‘frontline’ delivery.

But ministers would be wrong to think that their prayers have been answered. Their own track record of major IT projects should be enough to give anyone the jitters before making bold statements about the transforming power of technology. Beyond that, they should not underestimate the importance of the ‘personal touch’ in dealing with the public, or neglect the important civil liberties issues.

It is a point not lost on Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS civil service union. He has been busy defending his members against Gershon-inspired attacks – as well he might. However, he also makes a reasoned critique of the report on which the findings are based.

“The report claims that savings can be made in procurement and in transactional services, but does not spell out how these will be achieved,” Serwotka has said. “The emphasis on savings through the use of IT to carry out transactional services is flawed, as there is no evidence that this would lead to either cost savings or greater efficiency.

“And though I welcome the provision of government services on the internet, it cannot be a substitute for face-to-face contact with an experienced and dedicated civil servant at a local level. The public, particularly the most vulnerable, should not have to rely on inadequate computer systems provided by the private sector.”

It does not take a union leader with his own agenda to point out the failings of Whitehall’s IT reforms. Report after report from both Commons select committees and the National Audit Office have found failings, costing billions of taxpayers’ pounds.

Systems for the magistrates courts, Child Support Agency and NHS among others have all run drastically out of control while continued problems suggest it has been taking a long time to learn the lessons.

The issue of human contact is also important. Websites and pre-programmed telephone systems do clearly have the potential to save money through efficiency. Once successfully established they will always be cheaper to maintain than hiring staff in the UK, India or elsewhere.

But they are not suitable for everyone. All government services may soon be available online, yet not all service users are. A mixed economy of provision remains essential. Pensioners – a growing and increasingly influential slice of the electorate – are particularly resistant to this kind of change. For example, the shift in benefit payments away from order books and towards direct payments is not popular. It also works against another government objective of keeping post offices viable.

Yet it would also be wrong to see these problems purely in terms of Luddite OAPs. Who hasn’t been frustrated by their bank’s telephone service that never has an option for their own query? Ultimately these kinds of complaints require a human to resolve them. Equally, the use of technology requires a whole new cadre of more expensively trained staff to maintain, correct and improve systems.

By no means the least of the public’s worries is civil liberties. The most well covered of these debates has been over ID cards, where biometric and other information would be held on a central government database. But developments such as NHS electronic patient records also present concerns. Ministers may mouth reassurances over data protection, but they are not necessarily believed.

As is usual in issues of public policy, new solutions create new problems as well as solving old ones. Technology is no different and should be treated with caution as well as being welcomed.